Staffing Committee

Minutes of the Staffing Committee

May 20-21, 2009
In attendance:  Sabri Khayat   Chairperson
Shawn Bergeron Co-Chairperson
Madonna Gardiner  TC Representative
Marc Brière  TSO Representative
Linda Cassidy  Technical Advisor

 

1. Work Description Review

The Committee provided their comments on the work descriptions that were in their inventory.

Since the last meeting, the Committee received 17 work descriptions for their review.  The majority of these work descriptions were related to the SP to MG Conversion.  Comments have been provided to the employer on all but one (1) which is due May 29th 2009.

Since the last meeting, the Committee reviewed and provided comments to the employer on the following work descriptions:

SP0366  SP-06  Appeals and Complaints Officer
MG0925 MG-04  Manager, Communications
MG0924 MG-02  Supervisor, Security Incident Reporting Team
MG0915 MG-05  Manager, Executive and Corporate Services
MG0912 MG-04  Manager, National Recognition Program
MG0905 MG-04  Manager, Accommodation Program
MG0906 MG-04  Manager, Telecommunications, Parking, Moving and Infrastructure
MG0907 MG-04  Manager, Electronic Network Monitoring
MG0910 MG-02  Manager, Common and Executive Services
MG0900 MG-05  Manager, Fraud Prevention
MG0904 MG-04  Team Leader, Interior Design Projects
SP0060  SP-09 Internal Audit Project Leader
MG0908 MG-02  Manager, Corporate Support
MG0902 MG-01  Local Services Officer
MG0924 MG-01  Team Leader, Accounting Services
MG0921 MG-02  Manager, e-Business

The Committee has yet to receive confirmation from the employer regarding the creation of a new SP-04 Common Services work description. The Committee followed up with the employer during our meeting to find out the status of this work description. To date, we have not been advised officially that this type of work description is in fact being created.  The field has advised that a “common” position has been created with incumbents reporting directly to the Director’s Office but there is not an official work description.

One office did report that the employer is using the SP0163 work description until the creation of an appropriate work description. Another office indicated the SP0289 was being utilized.

UTE has a concern as it appears that this position has been created to perform all the former tasks that the former CR05’s in Finance and Administration and Human Resources used to perform. It has been indicated that this is being done as a result of the MG Utilization Study and the downloading of these types of functions to MG’s.

2. Specified Period Employees

This item will remain as a standing agenda item. The Ad Hoc Call Center Committee has not yet referred any issue to us.

3. Revenue Collections Integrated Enforcement Teams

Although the Committee expected to receive a copy of this report at the May 20th, 2009 meeting, unfortunately the meeting was postponed until June 11th 2009.  It is hoped that a copy of this report or an update regarding the report will be available at this meeting.

4. TSDMB

The bi-annual meeting with TSDMB was scheduled for May 20th, 2009; unfortunately the meeting was postponed until June 11th, 2009. 

Taxpayer Relief – As a result of issues being raised during the bi-annual TSDMB meeting in November 2008, the employer suggested that a meeting with Appeals would be appropriate. Sister Linda Cassidy attended a meeting with Taxpayer Relief on March 4th, 2009.  A summary of this meeting was issued to Executive Council for their information only.  The Committee is still in contained consultation with the employer on this initiative and has assured the employer that this information will remain contained until such time as decisions have been made. UTE is ensuring that the interests of our members are protected.

Debt Management Program Delivery Model – The Committee received several documents related to this issue from the employer for our review and comments.  The documents were provided as part of contained consultation.  The Committee was provided with the action plan and the presentation deck.  We provided our comments to the employer. The employer has subsequently briefed the union at the Regional Level. (2nd week of April)

National Workload Allocation Study - The Committee was consulted on this initiative.
We were provided with the presentation deck as well as the communiqué they wished to issue to the field and asked to provide our comments.  It appears the employer did take some of our comments into consideration.  Over the past few years, several regions have pooled all or segments of their TSO workload into regional inventories whose accounts are distributed throughout the region without regard to regional geographic boundaries. These regional workloads provided the regions the ability to assign higher priority accounts more effectively, addressing growing inventories and incorporate consistent regional business rules.  As a result of the success of these regional initiatives, the employer has developed a strategy for a National Program Delivery for “non face to face workload”.  As of this date the communiqué was issued to the field by the employer on April 22, 2009.

Educational Requirements – The Committee expected to receive an update on this issue at the May 20th, 2009 meeting.  An update will be issued to the field after the June 11th meeting.

Competency Levels – As a result of queries from the field, the Committee became aware that the competency levels for the SP04 Collection Contact Officer had changed and managers in the field were speculating that all competency levels for all related positions would also have to change.  The Committee requested that this issue be dealt with during the TSDMB meeting.  We wish to have a formal process of how the union will be informed of changes as well as a discussion on how members will be O and A’ed as a result of these changes.

5. Observe and Attest

As a result of our meeting with the employer on February 4th, 2009 the employer confirmed:

Management will reinforce the message that employees should not have to submit O&A examples by doing the following: 

  • Re-iterated the message at the O&A Coordinator meeting held on February 4 & 5, 2009.
  • Included this information to re-inforce the message in the O&A training material.
  • Message will be re-inforced during the training of the O&A Regional Training Partners that will take place during the weeks of April 20 & 28, 2009.
  • Other ways to re-inforce this message are currently being considered, such as email intended for management community.
  • When such situations are brought to the attention of the local union, they are encouraged to address the issue with local management.

With respect to the discrepancy between the English and French versions of the Toolkit for Managers, the Toolkit will be reviewed and updated. It will then be shared with the union for comments.

In addition, Resourcing has been advised of the Union's concerns regarding consultation with the End-State team and UTE's concern with the situation of Term employees in the Call and Tax Centres with the End State.

In March 2009, the Committee received a draft version of the O & A Expansion Implementation Strategy for our review.  Comments were provided back to the employer by their deadline and the employer has responded.  The suggested revisions were as follows:

1. There are concerns about the statement in the last paragraph on the branches and regions developing their own strategy.  Who will they be accountable to?  What, if anything, will be involved in monitoring?  It says regions but will local offices start doing their own thing as we have seen in the past?Will the regional/local union be involved in any way?  Should the resources be there already?  (branches and regions develop their own based on progress/availability of resources???)

Regions and Branches are asked to develop their own implementation plans based on readiness and resource availability and in order to meet their own needs. The Region /Branches O&A needs (Number of facilitator/coaches (FC),number of competencies to be assessed, number of training sessions) are different depending on the size of each region and branch.  The Region /Branches implementation plans have to be aligned with the national strategy. To this end, HRB has developed a template that Regions/Branches must populate. The national O&A team will review all plans and indicate areas which we feel should be addressed in each plan in order to ensure uniformity and to appropriately monitor progress.
  

2. What is meant by regular reports?

The champions will be responsible for increasing O&A visibility within their respective organizations and for working with O&A coordinators and local FC.  They should report on their CBHRM activities and these reports may be formal or informal depending on the AC needs.

3. Implementation will begin April 1, 2009....is this "observation" retroactive?  This is addressed in number 5 but can they begin to monitor prior to April 1st or does all observation have to take place after this date???

Generally a minimum of six months of direct supervision of an employee is required in order to observe a continuous pattern of behaviour. The supervisor can start learning the competencies through the Catalogue or any other method. The supervisor can also start observing behaviours and discussing their observations with employees prior to this timeframe, but he/she cannot officially attest the competencies of his/her employees until he/she is trained and authorized. Once the supervisor is authorized to attest, has discussed the observed behaviour, and is comfortable assessing competencies, he/she may proceed with the attestation.

It is indicated "The priority for the branches and regions is to first provide training on the six (6) O&A competencies". This statement concerns us as this should already be done?????  Can employees be O & A'd on the new competencies if they don't have the first ones? 
 
It must be acknowledged that O&A is an on-going process and not all employees will meet the criteria for being attested at the same time. Common practice will see employees within an area or even a team to be at different points within the O&A process. As indicated, the priority for the branches and regions is to first provide training on the six (6) O&A competencies and this does not preclude the attestation of new O&A competencies if the O&A requirements are met.

4. Module A is intended for managers with no O & A training and new F/C .and is a prerequisite for Mod. B. ............given this statement we are assuming mod A is not new and was in place for the original role out and if not the statement...." This module is a prerequisite for delivery of module B and will be given by the regions." needs to be amended.

Module A is not new and will be delivered by the regions. This module was extracted fromwhat was previously referred to as theCoreModule. It contains O&A administrative procedures, regional/branch implementation plan, local Quality Assurance Procedure, etc

In addition this section is stating “ employees training “ as well but there is no indication as to what type of training will be offered to employees in this process.

This will be determined locally. Employees should also consult with their managers to identify their competency learning needs. 

 5. We do not believe  there is anything new in this area however it does not speak to the issue of terms and time periods for them to get O & A'd which is a big concern for TC's and Call sites where terms do not get 6 months straight.....and we know there are lots of problems with this.

This question was raised in the past. As you may know, the national strategy has evolved and been adapted based on previously unforeseen situations such as Short-term Acting and Short-term Determinate Employees. Details at the following link
http://infozone/english/r2732472/ec-ce/rsas-nrpse/tools/oa/bckgrnd/stratChangesEmp-e.asp

8.2 O & A co-ord. will be "invited" to prepare reports.... to whom?  Under #2 the champion "will" provide regular reports....

O&A Coordinators will be invited to prepare progress reports to the national O&A team in order to appropriately monitor progress of implementation.

9.1 3rd statement why are only senior executive and employees mentioned.... is everyone else covered under employees?? Seems like a funny statement.

This statement will be modified to read: "Raise awareness of O&A among senior executives, managers and employees."

10. "To ensure that the O&A process works properly, the NOACO is conducting evaluations throughout the Agency."  Who are they being conducted with...it is not our members who have problems with the whole process??? 

The evaluation will be conducted to asses O&A implementation by the Regions and Branches. By knowing how the implementation for O&A expansion is working and by evaluating progress, we can respond to opportunities and challenges in timely manner. 

6. Working Groups

Recourse

As of this date, we have not received any additional information regarding the presentation to Committee on Human Resources on April 15th, 2008.  Brother Sabri Khayat will follow up with the employer on this issue.

Competencies Consultant:
 
The next meeting of the Competency Consultants Task Force will likely take place in the fall. Currently, plans are underway to pilot the strategy developed by the task force.

7. Interchange / Acting

To date, no new information has been received.  As a result of follow up with the employer they advised that Management has not had an opportunity to work on the Interchange Policy and Directive. They will provide us with an update in the fall.

8. Validation and Controls

The Committee has not yet received any information from the employer. The employer indicated in late April that they were looking into this and would get back to us as soon as possible.

9. Talent Management

The Committee received the final version of this document.  It was shared with the field.  As a result no further action is required.

10. CRA AND CGA

The final version of the agreement has been posted on the employer’s Infozone.  Notification was sent to the field regarding the posting of this information.  As a result no further action is required

11. Human Resources Flexibilities Audit

As the report was received, after the last meeting was completed, the Committee indicated that we would review and report on this matter in the minutes of our next meeting.  A full review of the report with special attention paid to the findings and recommendations was conducted. 

The Committee found that although the report did not focus on all areas of concern that members have brought to our attention, it did address some areas that have caused problems in the past. The Office of the Auditor General (OAG) recommendations narrowly focuses on time to staff positions and performance measures. It is unfortunate that when presented with an opportunity to address some very real concerns regarding staffing and recourse neither the OAG nor the CRA seem to show a real desire to want to improve the system to the benefit of our members.

12. Accounting Requirements

Further field consultation was completed by way of regional field visits and discussion with Human Resources Branch. The employer had indicated that once visits had been completed, the union would be contacted to discuss the national survey findings. We expect a full update at the June 11th, 2009 meeting.

As per the CRA plan of action, continuous consultation with the union will take place throughout the analysis and consultation process.

Any further information received from the CRA will be shared with the Executive Council and the field as appropriate.

The Committee also provided comments on Annex D, based on the latest draft sent to us.

UTE Comments

Although it is indicated that the changes are cosmetic due to the creation of the SP standard and that the employer has eliminated “obsolete” groups, there is a major discrepancy noted.

There is a list of exceptions to the SP04-SP10 levels that indicate several positions requiring a university degree as well as those with no standard and/or two years secondary as opposed to the secondary school. 

We have reviewed the former Annex D and this does not appear consistent.  We would appreciate an explanation as to why the employer believes that these positions require a different minimum standard.  If in fact the employer wishes to proceed with different standards for the same occupational groups, then the UTE will require an in-depth analysis of why this is required. 

The rest of the Annex is a reflection of what currently exists and thus we do not have any comments.  (It should be noted that on page 13, Positions requiring accounting, there is nothing listed so we would be curious to know what is intended to be in this area).

Employer comments

The SP education standard was to take all the education standards linked to the legacy occupational groups and amalgamated them into the single SP education standard without making any changes to their content.  The SP education standard was then divided into three sub-groups.

1. SP-01 to SP-03 requiring 2 years of secondary school
2. SP-04 to SP-10 requiring a secondary school diploma
3. SP jobs requiring knowledge of accounting (Annex D2)

If a job, for example, in the second sub-groups (SP-02-SP-10) has a different education standard than a secondary school diploma, then this job is included under one of the exceptions that reflect the current education standard.  There should be no change to any of the education standards for any jobs.  The list of jobs from the Classification Work Description Website was used with the hope that this list is 100% accurate.  If in the event there was a discrepancy, it would definitely correct it.

13. End State - PQP

The Chair and the Technical Advisor had a meeting with the employer on January 30th, 2009.  The employer sent us a draft document on Migration to End-State PQP Union Briefing. Unfortunately this document had already been issued to the field prior to the National receiving it.  In addition briefings have already occurred across the country at the regional and local levels and the Infozone site has gone live for all employees.

There are several areas of concern as well as questions that we need addressed by the employer, starting with but not limited to :

  1. How can they allow terms who are not on strength to apply on internal processes?  How can they consider them to be « off strength employees »?

  2. Where is the final report of the Winnipeg Pilot? This has become the cornerstone of end state and we have yet to receive a copy.

  3. What is the status of the National TC/Call Center Committee to work on end state that we were advised was being created on January 30th, 2009?

  4. Although documents have been shared with the union, they have not been shared with the intent of consultation occurring.

We will attempt to get clarification on the above concerns with the employer and Brother Sabri Khayat will add this to Executive Council for recommendations of how to get these issues addressed.

14. Employee Mobility Guidelines

The final version of the Employee Mobility Guidelines was posted on the employer’s Infozone. The Committee will send the final versions to the Locals.

15. CRA Welcome Letters

The employer has responded to our comments. 

1)  It would be nice if you told them that they are in a unionized environment and you provide them with the local contacts.

These standardized letters were developed to welcome represented and unrepresented permanent employees and newly-bridged employees.  The letter references the “A Good Start” link, which offers access to the union website.  

2)   Comments from the UTE Staffing Committee:

  • The fill in block to put (name of employee's job title) to add the job number,

    The employee will be able to locate his or her job number in their specific letter of offer.
     

  • The paragraph that encourages them "to ask questions and seek guidance from your manager and colleagues."  We would like to have the union added.  If not that some reference to the union included. 

    The Welcome Letters encourage employees to ask questions and seek guidance from their colleagues and manager.  Their colleagues may include their union or local union stewards.  As noted above, new employees can gain access to the union website by accessing the “A Good Start” link, also referenced within the letter.  
     

  • 2nd paragraph from the bottom in both letters.... we think there is only one "in mind" necessary. (When you read it again you will see what is meant.)

    Thank you for bringing this to our attention, the paragraphs have been re-worded to enhance understanding.  Following are the revised paragraphs:

For new permanent employees:

“As you will also learn, we take pride in the work we do and in the values we uphold. So please be sure to familiarize yourself with the Agency’s mission, vision, promise and values, as we expect all of our employees to work and conduct themselves with these fundamental principles in mind.”

For newly bridged students:

As I am sure you have already learned, we take pride in the work we do and in the values we uphold. So please be sure to re-familiarize yourself with the Agency’s mission, vision, promise and values, as we expect all of our employees to work and conduct themselves with these fundamental principles in mind.

  • We were also wondering if the intended audience includes returning term employees or is it only indeterminates, or do they already have one for terms???? (not that we know of).  Overall, we are not sure another letter is necessary with all the "stuff" they already get.  We hear feedback from our terms that there is too much to read now and that they don't read it.  They may or may not even keep it. 

    The Welcome Letters are intended for new permanent and newly-bridged employees as the audience.  A specific Welcome Letter was not developed for returning term employees.

For your information, these letters are now accessible through the Offer Management Macro (OMM) at the following Website address: http://infozone/english/r2732472/hrb-dgrh/connected/staffing/newhire/step1/omm/index-e.asp

As a result of the employer responding to our comments, there is no further action required.

16. Directive on the Planning of Learning  

As a follow up to the last set of minutes, the employer has provided a response to our comments on this Directive.
The employer’s response to our comments is as follows:

  • It appears this program is open to internal staff only.  This needs to be made clear at the beginning of the document.
    • The program has been designed for internal staff, however should the need arise we would like the flexibility to target external recruits.
  • It should also be made clear at the beginning of the document this is a developmental program for HR positions.
    • “This apprenticeship program is specific to HR learning positions”  and (missing) will be added to the beginning of the document. 
  • The issue of mobility is not clearly addressed in the document.
    • This is not an issue since all the HR positions targeted within the program are located at the same physical place. All assignments would be in either CLPD or TLSD – both located at Place de Ville.
  • Local management should be required to advise the local union of the appointment to the developmental position.
    • The appointment to an apprenticeship program follows the rules of the staffing program and Annex K on Apprenticeship Programs and will be done through a selection process. We don’t usually advise the local union when appointments are made from a pool. The available recourses will be provided to candidates and participants as prescribed in Annex L Directive on Recourse for Assessment and Staffing.
  • Once a participant is in the pool do they stay there for an indefinite period?  Does the intake process continue for new participants even though there are still participants in the pool?
    • The validity period for the pool will be determined by the authorized person at the creation of the pool, the same way as other pools of qualified candidates, for a maximum of three years. Also, the use of a new pool when an older pool is still valid will only be done under exceptional circumstances.
  • Page 8 talks about an orientation session.  Is this before or after they have been selected? If after, consideration should be given to an orientation session prior to the intake.
    • Orientation is for those selected to participate in the program.  The objective of the orientation is to provide participants with detailed information about the components of the program.  Information sessions may be held in the future when the workforce plan identifies a need for a large intake pool of participants.
  • Page 7 says Candidates must demonstrate that they have the required base competencies and associated proficiency levels of the specific Job Competency Profile (JCP) for either the learning officer or the learning specialist level. However, page 8 says Participants will develop their required competencies and associated proficiency levels through assignments within TLD during which they will perform a specified set of duties aimed at meeting current operational requirements and strengthening one or more competencies found in the JCP of the applicable HR/RH position.  
    • Entry into the program is at the HR 03 (learning officer) and HR 04 (learning specialist) levels.  The competencies that will be developed (page 8) are for the next level.  Hence if you enter at the HR 03 level, you would then develop the competencies for the HR04 level.
  • Page 9 deals with individual learning plans.  Shouldn’t there be a standard ILP whereby the participant can select what they need in order to complete the program?
    • External to the framework, we have developed exactly what you have mentioned.  Participants will be given a list of learning methods and courses they can choose to best meet their individual need.
  • Page 9 also addresses evaluating performance and developing performance expectations….. shouldn’t performance expectations already exist for these positions?
    • the expectations will be aligned with the specific work assignment
  • Page 11 speaks of the issue of unsuccessful candidates being placed based on “their substantive position held immediately prior to being appointed to the TLAP or level of achievement successfully attained within the TLAP.”  How can they be considered an unsuccessful candidate if they are placed at a level higher than when they entered the program?  If the purpose of the program is to appoint HR positions this seems to circumvent the normal staffing process.
    • this is as per Annex K  Directive on Apprenticeship Programs, section 11:  “Internal recruits, not subject to a probation period would have to be placed elsewhere in the organization based on their substantive position held immediately prior to being appointed to the Apprenticeship Program or level of achievement successfully attained within the Apprenticeship Program.”
    • The participant may be successful to the HR04 level but not to the HR05 level – in this case the person would be placed as an HR04 (even though he/she may have entered the program at a level equivalent to an HR03.)

17. Policies

For future minutes, all Policies will be dealt with as separate agenda items.

18. Draft Directive on Lateral Moves

Annex G – Feedback The Committee received and reviewed Annex G, Directive on Lateral Moves and provided its comments to the employer.  The employer has subsequently responded  to our comments as follows :

Response to Union of Taxation Employees (UTE) regarding the Directive on Lateral Moves

Comment

Response

Page 2 - 6.1.1 As there is a section on lateral moves without consent, to provide clarity the statement in the staffing program 4.4-2 on consent should be added in this directive.  It is in the current directive.

As we review each directive in the Staffing Program, we are taking the opportunity to streamline our directives to correspond to a corporate policy format.  Part of this involves retaining the original references in their source documents to avoid duplication, where possible.  In this case, the Staffing Program is the source document for this information.

Page 2 - 6.1.2 see comments above under application.  Needs clarification.

Page 2 - 6.1.3 refers to appendix A - Where do the MG's fit into this?  They are not mentioned in the appendix.

This issue is currently under review and a final decision will be made shortly.  If MG’s are included in this proposal then we will inform you of any changes.

Page 2 - 6.2.1 this is covered under "exceptional circumstances" in the current directive, this needs clarification. 

To respond to your comment and to enhance understanding, we have retained the wording found in the current directive.

Page 6 - Appendix A makes no reference to our MG employees.  Are they not covered by the directive?

As noted above, this issue is currently under review and a final decision will be made shortly.

As lateral moves can be made from the core public service, should there not be some reference similar to the directive on external recruitment where it states; "Consideration will be given to internal employees prior to conducting external recruitment." 

This review of the directive was primarily undertaken to facilitate the lateral moves of employees from the core public service.  Other significant changes, such as this, are not being considered at this time.  However, this comment will be considered when a broader review of the directive is undertaken.  This is also an element we can consider as we further develop our capacity for planning in staffing.

Could the document be amended to provide direct links to ALL the directives referenced?

Yes, we will include the links to all of the documents found in the references section.

What is the reasoning for the removal of the delegated levels referenced in the current directive?

As we review each directive in the Staffing Program, we are taking the opportunity to streamline our directives to correspond to a corporate policy format.  Part of this involves retaining the original references in their source documents to avoid duplication.  In this case, the HR delegation of authorities is the source document for the levels of delegation for lateral moves with and without consent.

There is no date on the current directive and it indicates a review should be under taken every five years.  For consistency purposes a date should be indicated of when the document was last reviewed.

Yes, once the directive is approved, we will ensure the date is indicated in the document.

19. Training and Learning Apprenticeship Program Framework

The Committee received the draft version of this framework and provided our comments back to the employer on March 18th, 2009.  The employer subsequently sought clarification of our comments in April 2009. Once the employer has responded to our comments, information will be shared with the field.

20.  Manager’s Guide to Student  Employment

The Committee received this guide in March 2009 and provided our comments to the employer.  Once the employer has responded to our comments and a final version has been received the information will be shared with the field.

21. CRA Succession Planning

The Committee received this guide in March 2009 and we provided our comments to the employer.  Once the employer has responded to our comments and a final version has been received the information will be shared with the field.

22.  Common Account Pilot Project

Further to discussions on the Common Account Pilot Project, Management will not be in a position to discuss this initiative until the end of June 2009.

23.  GST/HST Prepayment

The employer advised the union on March 5th, 2009 that they would finally be including the GST/HST Prepayment Program within the harmonized revenue ranges.  The new ranges were to take effect on April 1st, 2009.  Official Notification as well as the presentation deck were issued to the field. 

Special Note:  The employer has stated very clearly that they are not willing to pay acting pay as all offices have been provided with ample opportunity to ensure that all auditors are working their appropriate levels.  All locals are asked to be vigilant and ensure that members are not working beyond the established ranges as they will not be compensated.

24.  Canada Revenue Agency Workforce Plan

This document was received by UTE and distributed to the field by the National Office.  Brother Marc Brière and Sister Madonna Gardiner will be distributing this document to the Staffing Liaison network.

25.  Problem Resolution Program

The National union was provided with information on this program and the proposed changes. All regional and local unions were briefed on the proposal by the employer. The employer has also committed to keeping all levels of the union apprised throughout the process.

One of the major changes to the Problem Resolution Program is that it now resides in Appeals, functional responsibility transferred effective April 1st 2008 and then subsequent budget and accountability transferred as of April 1st, 2009. In addition, there  are new work descriptions in the process of being classified for these positions

The National Union was provided with draft versions of the work descriptions and responded back to the employer.  Members should be made aware that if they believe that the «Service Complaints Officer» work description does not accurately reflect their duties, they should have their local contact the National Office.  As this is a new work description, it is not covered by the MOU on job content grievances.

26.  Draft Guidelines for Educational Assistance

Sister Linda Cassidy will be attending a meeting with the employer on Monday May 25th, 2009 to provide the unions comments on this guideline.  The Committee reviewed the guidelines together and will be providing comments to the employer. A final copy of the guidelines as well as UTE’s comments and the employer’s response will be sent to the field when they are available.